Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Bushranger

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1441 profile views
  1. There are a host of inexpensive HD antennas for sale that seem to promise reception that seems beyond possible. I have always understood the broadcast T.V. signals are pretty much line-of-sight or about 35 miles before a tower is needed to get above the curvature of the earth. I recently watched a comercial that claimed 100 miles reception with one of those non-elevated, mount indoor, H.D. antennas. Two questions: 1) Is that 100 mile claim an outright lie? 2) If not an outright lie, what specific electronic technology would make 100 mile reception possible? If you choose to answer my questions, please list your qualifications (to weed-out pretenders)...electrical engineer, or some other pertainent qualification?
  2. My model is a Schumacher SL 1315 (750-1000 peak amps), cost $79.74 from Walmart. However, they have many more similar and more expensive products: https://www.batterychargers.com/en/products/jump-starters
  3. It may be notable in regard to auto batteries and in case you did not already know, the last primary smelter (ore to finsished metal), was closed in the U.S. a couple of years ago. Any virgin lead for car batteries will have to be shipped into the U.S. from countries that still have primary smelters operating, which will logically increase the cost of lead-acid batteries. It would seem that it would make sense for auto manufacturers to develop alternatives (lithium polymer?) to those batteries at this time. The only lead in the U.S. now in the supply chain will soon be from lead recovered from existing sources such as sewer pipes, nuclear medicine, worn-out batteries. However, I have learned as a lead bullet caster, the competition from entities like containers for nuclear medicine has caused competition and pushed the price of lead up along with making the supply chain for existing lead into a closed loop. At one time we casters could get lead nuclear medicine virtually free, but nowadays hospitals are required to return the containers to the manufacture. Also, many salvage yards will no longer sell lead but ship it back to secondary smelters. I have seen the price of salvage lead go from .30 a lb. to 1.00 a lb.(if one can find it) in just a few short years. So, the increasing scarcity of lead should logically be the impetus for a change in car batteries, but courusly seems to have not. Of course not...but even not being an engineer, I could engineer an alternative...with the state of development of the lithium polymer batteries, it seems to be a no brainer.
  4. The cost of the lithium polymer jumper was $79.7...not much different than a new lead-acid battery. Recycling lead batteries is not not normally a factor in auto manufacturing (secondary smelters are the ones who deal with that), so why would an auto manufacturer care? There seem to be a whole lot of guesses being offered here despite my admonition not to do so. PLEASE! If you are not involved with management in the auto industry, please do not give unsupported (no data to back opinion), guesses...I can get those in bars.
  5. Have you sat-in on an automaker's meetings and heard that discussion in a board room...or is that a guess?
  6. Driving my wife's car, I left the lights on in the parking lot...would not start. Bought an 800 amp Jump Starter. Car started right up. The Jump Starter (lithium polymer) weighs about 3 lb. or less. It states on the box that it will do 25 jumps before having to be recharged...which sounds like adapting it to an auto should be a no brainer. That begs the question: With such advancements in battery technology, why are the current autos still being produced with lead-acid plates? In other words, why havent car makers adopted the technology to make a 3 lb (or less) battery to current vehicles? Please do not guess or speculate. Please...only those who actually know need answer.
  7. I was assuming it was carbon from the fact that it was Black. So, maybe not carbon at all, but vaporized tungsten.
  8. I had to change a brake light in my vehicle yesterday. The filament had burned out. A apparent carbon stain was on the inside of the glass bulb which for me begged the question: Where did the carbon come from? The filament is made of elemental tungsten...no carbon compound in it to release carbon when it burns out. There is usually some inert gas inside the bulb also...usually elemental argon, I believe. Other than that there is just the glass stalks that hold the filiment in the void of the bulb. Therefore, just where does the carbon come from that stains the inside of the glass when the filament burns out? The only thing I can postulate is that if the filament were not pure tungsten, but something like tungsten carbide, that would be a source for the carbon stain. So, what is the source for that apparent carbon stain?
  9. So to summarize what you are saying, It is too cold for any sublimation of any water ice discovered in the moon's permanently shaded craters?
  10. Can you explain it to me just like I was six years old? If the temperature in my freezer is below 0 degrees Centigrade (32 degrees Feirnhight)...actually the temperature is way colder than 0 degrees C (as per your chart)...it is -17.77 C how is it that ice sublimates in my freezer...or doesn't it? Please put you answer into the context for someone who is not a scientist. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_Chemistry_(OpenSTAX)/10%3A_Liquids_and_Solids/10.4%3A_Phase_Diagrams
  11. It has been discovered that there is water ice in the perpetually shaded craters on the Moon and on Mars. I have always understood the freeze-drying process to be an acceleration of the sublimation process of water when frozen and subjected to a vacuum. Therefore, I do not understand how there could be water ice on either the Moon or Mars. Why has not the ice on the Moon (and Mars, et. al.)sublimated and dissipated into space especially inasmuch as it has no atmosphere? The only reason I can think of for that not to happen is that there has to be some involvement with oxygen for sublimation to take place. An explanation, especially accompanied by a chemical formula that demonstrates the process of sublimation would be most welcome.
  12. I do not remember where I read it, but some of the astronauts missed a massive wave of radiation by a few days. Those radiation storms are not the same as the constant radiation exposure on a typical space venture. They can come at anytime, would be devastating to the human body in a single exposure. Aside from that, the short exposure of the apollo astronauts seems to have had negative effects that were worse than anticipated. https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/
  13. They are talking about generating a magnetic field to contain the heat generated by the ion engine...where will the get the power to do that? There have been astronauts/cosmonauts in the international space station for over a year at a time. Nevertheless, the effect of cosmic rays is cumulative...that is the issue. That is what I am concerned about. It would seem that the issue of cosmic rays will need to be addressed before any lengthy trips in space are attempted, including Mars inasmuch as they will undoubtedly stay for awhile ( the astronauts will be subjected to cosmic rays on Mars as well as in transit), before coming back...two and one half years?
  14. Would the magnetic field to protect from cosmic rays be any more powerful than the magnetic field they are talking about generating around the ionic engine? According to the Nova presentation, cosmic rays are a serious problem, especially over the time of exposure that would be relative to a Mars mission. Why would a magnetic field attract ionic particles? Does not the Earth's magnetic field deflect (redirect)them?
  15. I have just watched "Can We Make it to Mars?" , a Nova DVD from Netflix. My focus of the several problems that hazzard space travel, are cosmic rays. We here on earth are protected from cosmic rays via the magnetic field surrounding earth. However, in a space ship, there is no protection and such rays are of concern to scientists. My question is relative to the anticipated Ion engine (radio waves stimulating Argon gas to ionize, producing a speed that would allow the ship to get to Mars in 39 days instead of the 9 or so months). The program stated that the ion engine would produce such high heat that it must be enclosed in a magnetic field. If that is so, and the plan on testing such engine in space soon, why not extend the magnetic field to the entire ship to shield from cosmic rays? Am I missing something vital here, or would such be possible?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.